1996-04-30 ,~irman
James A. Manzi
Vice Chairman
Richard Dinkin
Planning Director
Tina P. Cassidy
William Delaney
Joanne Dunn
Ellen K. Flannery
Salvatore Modugno
D. Stephen Papa
Barry Sullivan
John Thomson
MINUTES
Beverly Planning Board
April 30, 1996 Special Meeting
Members present:
Chairman James Manzi, Vice-Chairman Richard Dinkin, Sal Modugno,
John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Joanne Dunn, Steve Papa, Batty Sullivan,
Bill Delaney. Also present: Commissioner of Public Works George
Zambouras, City Planner Tina Cassidy
Chairman Manzi calls the special meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Thomson:
motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor,
motion carries.
Concurrent public hearings (continued): Sam Fonzo Drive Definitive Subdivision
plan and special permit application for development in the Watershed Protection
Overlay District
Cassidy reads the legal notice for the concurrent public hearings. Manzi asks if there are any
letters that have been submitted to the Board since the last meeting on these applications.
Cassidy reads letter and memos from Zambouras, Peter Ogren, the Salem/Beverly Water Supply
Board, and herself (see file for copies).
Manzi asks if a representative for the applicants is present this evening. Thomas Alexander,
representing the applicant, Fonzo Realty Trust, states that the roadway construction project is
estimated to cost approximately $2.7 million; of this figure, $1,750,000 in states grants have been
awarded to the City to use toward construction costs, and the balance of construction costs,
$1,000,000, will be private fimding from Fonzo Realty Trust. Alexander presents a brief
overview of what improvements will be done as part of both phase one and two in terms of
roadway construction and sewer and drainage improvements.
Dinkin asks if the State will be overseeing the issue of fly ash that may be present on the site
of this project. Peter Ogren, consulting engineer from Hayes Engineering, states that all test
results must be submitted for review. Preliminary indications are that there is a small amount
City Hall 191 Cabot Street Beverly, Massachusetts 01915 (508) 921-6000 Fax (508) 922-0285
Minutes of the Planning Board
April 30, 1996 special meeting
page two
of flyash present in one area, but it is not considered to be a hazardous type of flyash that will
need to be removed. Final reports will be completed by the time the draft Environmental Impact
Report is submitted.
Rene Mary, 274 Hale Street, questions the use ofphotogrammetry in compiling plan information,
the amount of blasting that will be required for this project, whether test wells will be monitored
on site, the costs of the project, and an estimate of the mount of fill that will be brought to the
site.
Councilor Bill Coughlin asks for a written estimate of the cost of construction and the mount
of grant monies that will be used. Alexander reiterates the figures for him. Sullivan asks
Alexander if it is correct that if there is a difference between the actual consttuction costs and
the funding sources listed earlier, the applicant will fund the difference. Alexander states that
they will.
Margaret Vemon, a resident of Trask Street, states that she .is concerned about the possible
effects of blasting on her property. Ogren explains that the Beverly Fire Department oversees
the state laws which regulate blasting activity, and provides a summary of some of the state
requirements that would apply. He also states that the City could ask for a broader radius of
blasting surveys that the 250' minimum required by the state regulations.
Sullivan asks the engineer to indicate where blasting will be required. Ogren points out on the
plan the areas where blasting will be necessary to construct the mad. Councilor Maureen
Troubetaris states that when the South Essex Sewer District performed blasting in her ward, she
observed the procedure and was impressed with the precautions thai were taken, and states that
both the pre- and post-blast survey worked well. Dinkin states that in the twelve years he has
been on the Planning Board, he is not aware of a single instance when damage from blasting
occurred without the homeowners being compensated for it.
In response to earlier questions from Mary, Ogren explains the use of photogrammetry and the
unlikelihood of groundwater ever flowing to Wenhem Lake. He points out that this project will
enable both the airport and the residences along Cabot and Trask Streets to eventually hook into
a municipal sewer system rather than relying on septic systems. Thomson asks Ogren to point
out the location of the so-called Nike site owned by the City, which Ogren does. Ogren also
states that no fill is expected to be brought onto the site; instead, fill from the areas of cuts will
be used.
Thomson asks if the sewer system for this project will be extended to the airport. Ogren states
that an actual connection will not be made, but will bring the line very close to the airport so that
a connection can be made in a financially-feasible manner.
Timothy Patterson asks if it makes sense to create more industrial lots if there are existing lots
Minutes of the Planning Board
April 30, 1996 special meeting
page three
in the Cherry Hill subdivision are still available. Ogren states that many of the lots in that
subdivision are still vacant because the owner, the Flatley Company, will not sell the lots, and
many companies want to own their own site rather than lease.
Councilor Peter Gilmore asks Cassidy if the provisions of the City's site plan review ordinance
allow the Planning Board to review surface and groundwater drainage on individual lots. Cassidy
states that such information is required by the ordinance. Gilmore asks if he heard correctly that
a portion of this site is subject to the provisions of the City's Watershed Protection Overlay
District. Cassidy states that he did, and Ogren indicates the area on the plan.
Cassidy reads a letter submitted to the Board by Naomi Cohen (see file).
Bill Bergeron, from Hayes Engineering, summarizes the results of the traffic study that has been
submitted to the Board for review; the study sent to the Board is only one part of the entire
traffic study that will be generated for this project. He mentions that staggered work hours could
be required to minimize the project's impact on traffic conditions. Gilmore questions how
staggered work hours could be enforced. Bergeron states that covenants can be required to do
this.
Robert Perron expresses concern about the impact of this project on downstream drainage
problems that already exist. Zambouras explains that the City's inflow and infiltration project
will improve the system so that the existing drainage can be handled adequately and create
additional capacity.
Coughlin asks if the developers will be correcting a sight distance problem at the curve of Route
97 heading toward the town of Wenham. Bergeron states that improvements will be made to
sight distances at the intersection of Cabot Street and Henderson Road.
Steven Bates, a resident of Lakeshore Avenue, states that he thinks this project is a positive step
for the City to take, and will enable the City to afford the new school renovation and expansion
program. He urges the Board to expedite the approval process for this project.
Manzi asks Zambouras if he has had enough time to adequately review the drainage and traffic
information that has been submitted. Zambouras states that he has not.
Dinkin:
motion to recess the concurrent public hearings on the Sam Fonzo Drive definitive
subdivision plan and watershed protection overlay district special permit to May
21, 1996 at 7:45 p.m. Motion seconded by Sullivan, all members in favor.
Motion carries.
Manzi reconvenes the Board's regular session.
Minutes of the Planning Board
April 30, 1996 special meeting
page four
Cassidy states that in order for the Board to defer discussion on these apphcafions until the May
meeting, the applicant will need to request an extension of time for final action. Alexander
submits a letter extending the applicable time frames to May 22, 1996.
Dinkin:
motion to accept an extension of time for final action by the Planning Board on
the Sam Fonzo Drive filings to May 22, 1996. Motion seconded by Delaney, all
in favor. Motion carries.
Dinkin:
motion to schedule a site visit to the Sam Fonzo Drive project for Saturday, May
11, 1996 beginning at 8:00 a.m. Motion seconded by Delaney, all members in
favor. Motion carries.
Dinkin asks legal counsel for the applicants if members of the public will be permitted to attend
the site visit. Alexander responds that they can.
Discussion/decision: Pearson Road definitive subdivision plan and special permit for
develonment in excess of two house lots in the Watershed Protection Overlay District
Man~i asks Cassidy to update the Board. Cassidy explains that the Board has previously closed
the public hearings on this project, and was waiting for revised plans and drainage calculations
to be reviewed and approved by the Commissioner of Public Works. Additionally, the Board had
asked City Solicitor Marshall Handly for his legal opinion on whether the revised plans, which
address the concerns raised during the public hearing on drainage, would require a new public
hearing. Cassidy reads letter from Zambouras indicating that the revised plans and calculations
are acceptable, and that the revised drainage scheme will not only handle the new development
but also improve the existing drainage problems.
Attorney Thomas Alexander, representing applicants David Camevale and Gaxy Palardy, states
that he is comfortable that a new public hearing is not required in order for the Board to~consider
the revised information. Dinkin concurs with Alexander's assessment.
Cassidy lists the waivers being requested by the applicants (see file). Dinkin states that with
respect to the request that a 100' portion of the sidewalks be eliminated on the southeasterly side
of the proposed road, he would not be in favor of granting such a waiver. Thomson states that
on the issue of considering the revised plans and calculations, he believes that any risk of legal
defect is a burden on the applicant, not the Board, and is confident that Alexander would not
urge the Board to act in a manner that would negatively affect his clients. Delaney adds that
with the new information on drainage, the drainage issues have been satisfactorily resolved.
Delaney suggests that the Board vote on the requested waivers before voting on the definitive
subdivision plan and special permit application, and the Board concurs.
Minutes of the Planning Board
April 30, 1996 special meeting
page five
Delaney:
motion to gram a waiver from Section III.2.d., requirement that all l~ees six inches
(6") in callper or greater be shown on the plan, seconded by Papa. All members
in favor, including the Chainnan, motion canies.
Delaney:
motion to grant a waiver from Section V.C.I., requirement of two feet (2') of
cover over sewer lines to the limit shown on the plan, seconded by Dinkin. All
members are in favor, including the Chairman, motion carries.
Delaney:
motion to grant a waiver from Section IV.A.2.e., requirement for property line
radius of thirty feet (30') to permit radius of six feet (6') on the northerly side of
the intersection of the new roadway with Old Rubbly Road. Motion seconded by
Sullivan, all members in favor including the Chairman; motion carries.
Delaney:
motion to grant a waiver from the Board's requirements that sidewalks be installed
along the entire length of both sides of the roadway to permit the elimination of
a sidewalk for 100' on the southeasterly side of the roadway, seconded by
Flannery. Dinkin states that he will not vote'in favor of this waiver request
because he believes that public ways should be available for use by the public in
their entirety. Thomson states that he agrees with Dinkin.
Delaney withdraws his motion, but states that he thinks the Board should do something to
provide a buffer for the neighbor abutting this project. Zambouras suggests that instead of
placing a buffer area where the sidewalk would go, the Board should consider requiring the
developers to provide a buffer outside of the road right-of-way, on the abutter's property, if she
would allow it.
Delaney:
motion to deny applicants' request that a waiver of the Board's sidewalk
requirement be granted for a distance of 100 feet, seconded by Dinkin. All
members including the Chairman in favor;, the waiver request is denied:
Delaney:
motion to approve the Pearson Road ("Sunday Drive") definitive subdivision plan
and special permit request for a residential development in excess of two house
lots in the Watershed Protection Overlay District subject to the following
conditions:
That all comments and recommendations contained in letters from the
Salem/Beverly Water Supply Board dated February 16, 1996, and
Commissioner of Public Works George Zambouras dated February 20,
1996 be incorporated into the definitive plan prior to its endorsement, and
are conditions of approval;
Minutes of the planning Board
April 30, 1996 Special Meeting
page six
That a notation shall be added to the plan referencing the Beverly Board
of Health's Soil and Solid Fill Rel~ulafions;
That plantings be installed along the roadway on land owned currently by
Mrs. Grace Marmcci for a distance of approximately 100 feet along the
southeasterly section of the proposed roadway - the planrings shall be of
a species and size that provides privacy, and shah be done only with the
permission of the property owner, and
That documents demonstrating the developers' legal right to enter onto
privately-owned lands and perform all necessary drainage work shall be
provided to the Planning Department.
Motion seconded by Sullivan, all members including the Chairman are in favor.
Motion carries.
3. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plan: Pickman/Neptune Road
Cassidy explains that the Board has received this approval not required plan that meets all of the
Board's requirements for endorsement.
Delaney:
motion to endorse the ANR for property at the comer of Pickman Road and
Neptune Street as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law,
seconded by Papa. All members in favor, motion carries.
Manzi asks if there is any other business. There is none.
Dinkin:
motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries.
Meeting is adjourned at 9:45 p.m.